MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3122437688

Invoking Human Rights to Reduce Maternal Deaths

2004· article· en· W3122437688 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca J. Cook, Beatriz Galli

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Maternal and Child Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommissionLegislatureChristian ministrySAFERPolitical scienceConfidentialityGovernment (linguistics)Reproductive rightsWork (physics)Human rightsPublic administrationEconomic growthSocioeconomicsGeographyReproductive healthEnvironmental healthLawMedicinePopulationSociologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National strategies might best be exemplified by developments in Brazil, where all three branches of government-executive, legislative, and judicial-are engaged in making motherhood safer. Across the country, 260 women die per 100 000 livebirths; rates are highest in the poorest north, northeast, and centre-west regions. In 1994, in an attempt to reduce maternal deaths, the Federal Ministry of Health established the National Commission on Maternal Mortality. State governments undertook to create 27 maternal mortality committees to conduct confidential investigations into causes of maternal deaths, and to work towards prevention. However, in 2001, a Federal Parliamentary Commission reported that only 14 committees were active, since in the poorest states, committees either lacked the resources to function effectively or had not been established; and, despite notification of maternal deaths having been mandatory since 1997, that maternal deaths were under-reported throughout Brazil, especially in the poorer states.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicGlobal Maternal and Child Health→French-language works237,207→